[In the Matter of the Matai Title “I`AULUALO,” of the village of Afono]

High Court of American Samoa

Trial Division

MT No. 08-97

September 24, 1998

[1] A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c) provides that in amataititle dispute, the criteria to be considered are the best hereditary right; clan support; forcefulness, character and personality, and knowledge of Samoan customs; and value to family, village, and country.

[2] Where all candidates for amataititle have a harmonious family history, the court applies the Sotoa rule in calculating the best hereditary right and looks to the earliest generation descendant.

[3] Under A.S.C.A. § 43.0302, where amataititle candidate insists on his position that the matter be taken to court, meetings must first be held at the Office of Samoan Affairs.

[4] Where claimants’ candidacies in amataititle dispute are not presented to the assembled family for consideration, they can lay no claims to family support, but where a claimant’s candidacy is presented to the family and is unanimously endorsed by family consensus, such candidate will prevail on the issue of clan support.

[5] In evaluating forcefulness, character and personality, and knowledge of Samoan customs in amataititle dispute, the court will consider a candidate’s age, work history, prominence in the community, personality, leadership ability, and health.

[6] In evaluating value to family, village, and country in amataititle dispute, the court will consider a candidate’s ability to make peace,connection to the community, service to the family by contribution to fa`alavelave and village obligations, and family following. [2ASR3d239]

Themataititle I`aulualo has been vacant for many years.Among other things, a longstanding history of factional rivalry within the I`aulualo extended family has existed between the immediate families of candidate FolauI`aulualo and candidate Tuasivi S. I`aulualo.[1]The I`aulualo family has since been divisive on the issue ofmataisuccession, an issue which has been before this court earlier but remanded back to the family after the court found that none of the candidates then vying for the title were legally eligible to succeed.SeeAoelua v.I`aulualo